•MP is "SP but more intense, challenging, rewarding, and fun".
•"It's possible immersing anybody in [example] because there are levels of intensity which are OK for everybody." … (or) … "More stimulating, skillful gameplay is more rewarding." Agreeing with either of these is believing in objectivity of designs, critiques, and reception.
… Post ITT for interesting opinions (facts), trends, and other stimulating discussion.
Other urls found in this thread:
nutrientsreview.com
twitter.com
What is this thread?
>•MP is "SP but more intense, challenging, rewarding, and fun".
No
OP quoted a thread from another day I think, because I remember that last line about whether or not quality can be considered objective, at least.
So, what I think he’s trying to have us do is to talk about similar stuff like that, but without a specific topic to focus on?
It’s experimental, I’ll give it that.
MP might be fun if everyone (and I do mean everyone, at least 98%) wasn't conditioned to be a meta-slave by a forced "competitive" mode. If your main mode is "competitive", the game community is already aids.
>What's possible in SP also is with MP.
Not always.
Take, for example, the final, final fight of FF7, where it's Cloud vs. Sephiroth in a black void. You can't lose this encounter, and your only option is to use Omnislash. It's an exciting moment, and a victory lap for the player, which allows them to take out their rage on the antagonist of the game.
If you had something like Omnislash in multiplayer, and two players found themselves in the black void, the one on the receiving end would just think, "this is bullshit," and disconnect. It would be severely un-fun for him, and likely not fun for the person who got the Omnislash because it trivializes the skill it *should* require to take down a human opponent.
Also, the entirety of pic related would struggle to work as a multiplayer experience.
What's possible in SP also is with MP. Yet players are efficient opponents / friendlies. Hereof is also dynamism / spontaneity / emergent gameplay. Thus "challenging", so "intense" and "rewarding" – "fun"
>Community makes the gameplay
Designs and "the player" are responsible for entertainment.
You're talking about "spontaniety" and "emergent gameplay" and "dynamism" in an environment where your team will kick and report you for not doing what someone on the official forums said is the best thing to do.
What you're saying is essentially the same as "real communism has never been tried".
Competitive MP is overrated shit. You're dealing with big amounts of input lag, dubitable balancing choices, and as always community being all around asses. What's worse clueless devs make MP for LAN-party environment with pros, completely skipping literally 99% of the situation MP is played in. All the kicks you're getting out of it aren't really because your opponents are "smart" or anything like that, just pure dopamine rush of showing others who's the boss of this gym.
MP is not at all SP. SP is meant for the PC to ultimately win, MP is built on the idea that some PCs have to lose as the intended result.
For >Omnislash in multiplayer (vs. another player)
That's basically false-equivalence. The "SP scenario" is possible in MP. … Making it vs. another player is also, though – even in your response, the phrasing was of a feasible hypothetical. But this is a really poor example because it's basically a standard winning QTE – there's even "only a simple option"; it does huge amounts of damaging points; etc.; but even worse because it's barely even of interactivity: just in starting the ability.
Your choice of genre is really critique-able, even niche. Gameplay enjoyment derives from intensity, creativity, etc. – objectively, even if some demographics are enjoying lesser qualities / quantities.
>arenas
>kicking / reporting
Those things are very specific, strawman-esque examples, the latter specifically being debatable for even existing in such context / relevance.
Furthermore, emergent gameplay is often mentioned more when referencing world-based games.
>Competitive MP
On this being "arenas", that's mostly SP-correlative to arenas, even of similar playstyles.
>IL
… Latency is sometimes a problem (though basically "unnecessarily so"). IL is based on the development though.
>balancing choices
Development problem. Balancing 1v1 DPS is simple.
>community
Development problem.
>designs
" "
>dopamine
That's correlative to the whole – players being plausibly skillful and/or social esteemability.
"Challenging gameplay" suggests playing well, whether it's SP or MP.
The definition of skill nodaways was watered down because zoomers can only recognize mechanical skill and nothing else. When somebody gets outplayed on a tactical level and just gets killed without being able to do anything (simply because their positioning was bad), they scream about no skill and demand nerfs to any tools which allowed this situation to happen to them.
You say "very specific" and "strawman-esque" while it's something that's been going on for a decade in Blizzard (and even extending to PVE MP content) games and LoL, which combined make a huge percentage of MP games overall and perhaps even a bigger percentage exposure-wise. And frankly it's not just about those games or either, in any competitive MP game you will find tons of people who just slave the meta and as such are little better than computer opponents. Add in team-based mode with communication and it's going to get real shitty.
Now consider that the two entities (Blizzard and LeL) who have been almost dominating the exposure these forms of get for a decade have been specifically conditioning new people for this kind of shit, you can see why it's so widespread and why it will keep spreading to every new game.
What I meant with the political comment was that you're arguing for the ideal. Yes, what you say is true in the ideal, but the real world application is often something else.
>"Challenging gameplay" suggests playing well, whether it's SP or MP.
And? Once again, the ultimate point of a SP game is to reach the end. The ultimate point of MP is to prevent other players from reaching the end. On that basis alone they are fundamentally different.
>zoomers
You're biased, and projecting.
>tactical … positioning
Specific games being …
>[arenas]
But your whole argument is basing on very repetitive modes, usually in really small maps.
Furthermore, the availability of a meta (for large amounts of gameplay) is a development problem.
PS: Energy levels, creativity, (even) socialization, and other genetic expressions are deriving from nutrition … (E.g., height is most correalting with protein intakes.) Other aspects are also beneficial (flexibility, cardio, and strength – because of relaxedness and intensity and authority-in-posing-and-movement … which is even associated with T levels). This is relevant to both designing and playing games.
1/2
Skillfulness is important even in SP games.
You're making a false-dichotomy.
I never said it wasn't you fucking fag.
No matter what the challenge is, if it's SP then the intention is for the challenge to be overcome. The intention in MP is that other people are the challenge. It's not possible to have other people be the challenge while also letting everyone win. There's nothing false about this dichotomy.
If you expect serious discussion you could do better than this.
>Implying I wanted to argue with an underage who thinks he's good in debating things and who's trying to start an argument with an indirect insult and a shitty non-argument in attempt to get a high ground out of the blue
If you have anything coherent to say, feel free to do so, I may change my mind. Beware though, you might get shit on again.
PS:
>vitamins and minerals (nutrientsreview.com
>specifically even, 3-4g x 4 of vitamin C because of how .01% vs. .4% supplementation for non-biosynthesizers was vs. natural producers (and of which is reasonable because even small animals are making 10+ g/day)
>L-DOPA, 5-HTP, Sangre de Grado, astaxanthin, powdered-caffeine (usually-instead-of-coffee while still dealing with roasted beans having acrylamide), L-theanine, L-cysteine, niacin, sunflower lecithin (for choline, acetylcholine, et al.), and sometimes GABA, though it's been shelved because of being utilized as a rewarding nutriment, especially for hypoglycemia.
>both are of skillfulness
>MP simply has more reliance on personal ability, et al.
Again, you're relegating that to somehow being lesser when in fact it's more (rewarding, intense, etc.).
Your garbage has been obliterated, and you're resorting to ad-hominems.
>was obliterated
>n-no it was you who was obliterated!
>was the one who started the ad-hominem
>got shit on
>waaaah ad-hominem
This is a little pathetic even for underage, don't you think?
What I posted is still accurate, and the only "ad-hominems" were on the mediocrity of arguments.
I haven't relegated anything. You seem to think the only criteria that matters in a game is how rewarding it feels, and perhaps you're right, but challenge isn't the only contributing factor to reward. Otherwise creative Minecraft wouldn't exist and all the autists would build in survival, since it's more challenging to gather the resources needed to build.
It's funny because you didn't post anything coherent aside from ad-hominems in your replies to me, which is even funnier considering that after that you blamed me for doing what you did earlier. Do you like when people make fun of you?
>that's basically false equivalence
Yes, but I'm not the person saying that MP is more fun than SP in all scenarios, nor am I saying that "anything that is possible in SP is possible in MP." The point was to demonstrate that the basis for this discussion is wrong right out of the gate, as well as highly subjective.
This is a very interesting thread, but you can't state absolutes and then re-jigger your absolutes when examples are given which prove those assumptions false.
The challenging-ness of something is of inherency to how rewarding it is. You're basically asserting "yeah, more intense, rewarding gameplay is more fun; but life-juxtaposition exists, so there are niches below pure extremity". But it's also possible having multiple *types* of gameplay – controlling characters directly, clicking units unto locations and actions, etc. The correlative is of "having the most", even still – e.g., because reductive iterations are surpassed by real life options of creativity and "roleplaying".
>lying
>Yes, but I'm not the person saying that MP is more fun than SP in all scenarios, nor am I saying that "anything that is possible in SP is possible in MP."
… Posting an example of "clicking an ability and winning" is of such little relevance. It's appealing to cinematics. MP cinematics are possible, but an analogy is "well, typing in something and 'crashing a server' is ludicrous when other players are affected". It's basically appealing to extremes / reductio ad absurdum. Yet, it *is* possible, just so beyond interesting options that it's shelved.
ok pal I really tried to engage you faithfully but you talk like a retard and your shit's all fucked up.
>of inherency
just say it's "inherent" you fag
>but life-juxtaposition exists, so there are niches below pure extremity
what the fuck does this even mean? That entire word salad just to say that there are cases beneath the extreme? How is your following sentence even tangentially related?
Maybe your master's thesis requires you to write like such a faggot but we're on 4chins, you can drop it.
>lying
I'm sorry my man, but you're not as smart as you think you are and people won't take you seriously if you're only here to suck your own dick.
"How the following sentence is related" seems obvious.
>can vs. should
Coming up with something while typing it is OK, even though it's terminological. This far into a discussion, it's fresh, points new readers back to previous (less specific) aspects of the subtopic, etc.
Expecting "quality" is only sane when being reasonable. Your arguments were too reliant on appeals to tradition, and the OP is still factual.
then allow me to rephrase; you SHOULD drop it. If your intention is to have a stimulating dialogue (here, of all places) then you SHOULDn't impose a language-barrier. Precise language is only a boon when your audience understands it, otherwise it's a burden.
For example, it seems obvious to YOU how your sentence was related, to me you said a whole lot of nothing.
But this is not the topic you wished to discuss, and nor is it the advice you didn't ask for. Just some food for thought. Thanks for the nutrition tips though.
>factual
You don't seem to know what that is.
Some people think that verbosity makes them look smart when in reality it's pretty much the opposite.